Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gender & Sexuality

329 replies to this topic
Gay Tony
  • Gay Tony

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 May 2014
  • United-States

#1

Posted 21 December 2015 - 11:34 PM

Over the past few decades or so and especially recently there's been an increasing train of thought that gender is entirely a social construct with hardly any biological basis, which I at least partly disagree with on the basis of varying hormones and differing demands based on evolution and clear differences between males and females throughout the animal kingdom.

 

There's also this thinking that people are born straight, gay, bi, etc. 

 

 

If we're born with a certain sexuality is it so out of the question we're probably also born with gendered attributes attributing to biology as well.....which means gender isn't entirely a social construct.

  • epoxi, Mister Pink, Failure and 5 others like this

TheFoxRiverFugitive
  • TheFoxRiverFugitive

    Sly Fox

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#2

Posted 22 December 2015 - 12:48 AM Edited by TheFoxRiverFugitive, 22 December 2015 - 06:19 PM.

I believe sexuality to be mostly rooted in biology, but also acknowledge that it is possible for external forces (parents, friends, associates, etc.) to either kindle or subdue it. I speak from my own personal experience. I'm fairly confident that my entire life I've been attracted to both men and women, and have in some cases revealed that to people or kept it a secret deliberately. I don't necessarily believe it can be "cured" like some religious fundamentalists want to be able to do, but I do think you can be "scared straight" for the sake of social harmony and maintaining appearances.

  • Melchior and Gay Tony like this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#3

Posted 22 December 2015 - 01:05 AM

It can fluctuate and there are outliers like with everything, but generally I think there are quite strong built in biological differences between men and women. Sex and gender are the same thing pretty much. There have been studies done on 1 day old babies where they're shown different things and there are clear patterns where males and females react differently. Baby girls look at pictures of faces longer for example and boys look at mechanical things for longer. I think the idea that gender is a social construct is entirely wrong. It's more like gender is a biological construct, and our environment then merely enhances this. 

 

As for sexuality, I think it's more like you're predisposed to certain things and not necessarily a certainty. I don't think anyone is actually born gay, I think it's just something that kinda develops but obviously with some people they're much more predisposed one way or the other, and I think environment can be a big factor. One thing that's sometimes brought up when discussing this is the idea that "gay" wasn't really a thing hundreds of years ago like it is today. So was that because back then there was roughly the same percentage as today that was attracted to the same sex, but they just didn't act on it or admit it to anyone from fear of persecution? Or was there really just less proportion of the population that was attracted to the same sex? I personally think it was the 2nd one. 

  • GTA36362355, TheFoxRiverFugitive, Skeever and 2 others like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#4

Posted 22 December 2015 - 04:10 AM Edited by Melchior, 22 December 2015 - 04:11 AM.

It can fluctuate and there are outliers like with everything, but generally I think there are quite strong built in biological differences between men and women. Sex and gender are the same thing pretty much. 

Except gender varies wildly from one society to the next. The ancient Greeks thought crying and getting blubberingly emotional was masculine, and that women were emotionless and only care about sex. Men were considered 'virtuous' for abstaining from sex, now they're considered strong for seeking it out. Teaching, social work and nursing are considered 'women's work' despite women being banned from such jobs historically and in many places today, it's arbitrary.

 

If women do something it's wrong and degrading, unless men start doing it, then it's amazing. This has happened recently with cooking. 

 

 

I shouldn't even have to address that ridiculous statement tbh. You should know better like if you think sex and gender are the same thing you don't understand what the two words mean. By definition, they are not the same thing. 

 

 

 

There have been studies done on 1 day old babies where they're shown different things and there are clear patterns where males and females react differently. Baby girls look at pictures of faces longer for example and boys look at mechanical things for longer.

Nobody is denying that there are biological differences between men and women. I don't really believe that one about day old male children being fascinated by engines (seriously?) although the women looking at faces seems plausible. But those differences are slight and are nothing compared to the social conditioning you go through which creates your personality. If you're going to become a mechanic, your sex or gender is less important than the amount of time you've spent with cars. If a woman grows up in a cold household or has certain expectations placed on her she'll be less nurturing than some men. If you control for every single variable, maybe sex is a good predictor of the kind of person you'll be but it's entirely moot. 

 

 

 

I think the idea that gender is a social construct is entirely wrong.

Based on what? No seriously, it is very well understood that gender is a social construct. What do you know that the rest of us don't? 

  • mr quick, Tyler and Fonz like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#5

Posted 22 December 2015 - 05:03 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 22 December 2015 - 05:17 AM.

The ancient Greeks thought crying and getting blubberingly emotional was masculine, and that women were emotionless and only care about sex. Men were considered 'virtuous' for abstaining from sex, now they're considered strong for seeking it out.

I really don't think that's true. You think a traditional society like ancient Greece where women are confined to tasks in the home, has women being 'sexual and emotionless', and men being 'blubberingly emotional? How are 'emotionless' women supposed to be caring for children? And how are 'blubberingly emotional' men supposed to be soldiers?

Men are still considered virtuous for abstaining. When was a politician last praised for having sex with more than one partner in his life? There's a dubbel norm in our society. There's a norm for the 'provider male', the man who is supposed to have a responsible role within the social contract, and then there is the ideal of the non monogomous (and non polygamous..) man who sleeps with a lot of women, which some people admire, but nobody will ever see such a man as a responsible and trustworthy member of society who could attain a powerful position. Only an older man with a fixed number of wives, of who you can be sure he will not bang your wife or daughter, can you trust and elect.. I included the polygamous part to make this more general, but off course in Western society the norm is monogamy.

The norm that women should use their sexuality sparingly though, has its origins in the development from hunter gatherers to agricultural societies. Agriculture caused the advent of private property. Private property is closely linked to monogamy, hence why virginity was worth money in classic societies. You can read in the old testament that if you rape a woman you need to pay her father an amount of silver, and then need to marry her.

I think female sexuality has always been less 'free' than male sexuality, considering women are pregnant for nine months and men can theoretically impregnate many partners in a given period. But since private property and monogamy female sexuality (but also sexuality in general) has become incredibly suppressed, compared to the hunter-gatherer period, which is by far the most significant in human evolution. What is interesting though is that human reproductive organs are evolved for 'sperm competition'. I'm too lazy to explain this right now, but read about it here: http://edition.cnn.c...iscuity.normal/
So anyway, both human females as well as males are by nature extremely sexually promiscuous. And many of us have experienced this first hand, lol.
 

 

One thing that's sometimes brought up when discussing this is the idea that "gay" wasn't really a thing hundreds of years ago like it is today. So was that because back then there was roughly the same percentage as today that was attracted to the same sex, but they just didn't act on it or admit it to anyone from fear of persecution? Or was there really just less proportion of the population that was attracted to the same sex? I personally think it was the 2nd one. 

Why the hell do you think that? And why do you think the information on homosexuality 'hundreds of years ago' would be comparable to the information on homosexuality in the modern age?

  • X S and prettybluemetal like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#6

Posted 22 December 2015 - 07:45 AM

I might have expressed that poorly, women were viewed as emotionally unresponsive in relationships, and incapable of forming the kind of emotional attachments that men formed with each other, hence relationships with young boys were viewed as in some ways superior to relationships with women. It's not that men and women literally had opposite roles.

 

How can you be emotional and a soldier? Simple: you go to a battle, and then when it's done you start crying and banging your head against the wall, lamenting the loss of your friend. Crying was viewed as manly (not so much sobbing) and still is in some places. 


Gay Tony
  • Gay Tony

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 May 2014
  • United-States

#7

Posted 22 December 2015 - 10:38 AM Edited by Gay Tony, 22 December 2015 - 12:09 PM.

If women do something it's wrong and degrading, unless men start doing it, then it's amazing. This has happened recently with cooking.

 

I'd just like to say it really does go both ways. Men being stay at home dads, caretakers, primary school teachers, etc. is often seen as kinda "unmanly" and most defiantly not amazing. Whereas when women go into fields like engineering, hard sciences, etc. it's almost seen as "cool".

 

In many ways female masculinity is much more socially accepted than male femininity.  Women interested in sports, cars, hunting, etc. and what's traditionally seen as more masculine hobbies are completely accepted and more often a man into cosmetics, pedicures, ballet etc. is made a mockery.

  • epoxi, Eutyphro, Irviding and 1 other like this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#8

Posted 22 December 2015 - 12:29 PM

 

It can fluctuate and there are outliers like with everything, but generally I think there are quite strong built in biological differences between men and women. Sex and gender are the same thing pretty much. 

Except gender varies wildly from one society to the next. The ancient Greeks thought crying and getting blubberingly emotional was masculine, and that women were emotionless and only care about sex. Men were considered 'virtuous' for abstaining from sex, now they're considered strong for seeking it out. Teaching, social work and nursing are considered 'women's work' despite women being banned from such jobs historically and in many places today, it's arbitrary.

 

If women do something it's wrong and degrading, unless men start doing it, then it's amazing. This has happened recently with cooking. 

 

 

I shouldn't even have to address that ridiculous statement tbh. You should know better like if you think sex and gender are the same thing you don't understand what the two words mean. By definition, they are not the same thing. 

 

 

 

There have been studies done on 1 day old babies where they're shown different things and there are clear patterns where males and females react differently. Baby girls look at pictures of faces longer for example and boys look at mechanical things for longer.

Nobody is denying that there are biological differences between men and women. I don't really believe that one about day old male children being fascinated by engines (seriously?) although the women looking at faces seems plausible. But those differences are slight and are nothing compared to the social conditioning you go through which creates your personality. If you're going to become a mechanic, your sex or gender is less important than the amount of time you've spent with cars. If a woman grows up in a cold household or has certain expectations placed on her she'll be less nurturing than some men. If you control for every single variable, maybe sex is a good predictor of the kind of person you'll be but it's entirely moot. 

 

 

 

I think the idea that gender is a social construct is entirely wrong.

Based on what? No seriously, it is very well understood that gender is a social construct. What do you know that the rest of us don't? 

 

 

As I said, there are outliers. But for most people gender and sex are the same. Being born a man automatically gives you masculine traits due to your brain being wired a certain way and having a certain mixture of hormones, this in turn will make you more likely to behave in certain ways, and your biology also makes you better at certain things which means you'll be more likely to have interest in these things. The fact that in different societies there are different cultural, social and moral norms for men and women doesn't change that. Even if your Greek example were true, I don't see how it disagrees with what I'm saying. I'm not saying our environment isn't a big factor because it obviously is, but I'm saying that gender and sex are very closely tied by biology and that close connection would exist regardless of our cultural environments. Our environment and culture is just the natural progression of what already exists naturally. 

 

I don't think gender is a social construct because that suggests it's something artificial that some people just came up with and then we just adhere to it because people/society say that's how it should be. I think it's actually very heavily rooted in biology and is a completely natural thing. It's a biological construct not a social one. By whom is it understood that it's a social construct? 

 

The mechanical pictures shown to baby boys, it wasn't pictures of engines, but basically "systems" I guess. Mechanical was probably the wrong word. Anyways the point was that the male brain is better wired to understand these kinds of things and so male babies look at pictures of these kinds of things for longer. Which is why men are naturally better at things like maths and chess. 

  • Mister Pink likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#9

Posted 22 December 2015 - 12:34 PM

I'd just like to say it really does go both ways. Men being stay at home dads, caretakers, primary school teachers, etc. is often seen as kinda "unmanly" and most defiantly not amazing. Whereas when women go into fields like engineering, hard sciences, etc. it's almost seen as "cool".

 

In many ways female masculinity is much more socially accepted than male femininity.  Women interested in sports, cars, hunting, etc. and what's traditionally seen as more masculine hobbies are completely accepted and more often a man into cosmetics, pedicures, ballet etc. is made a mockery.

 

I don't see how this is it 'going both ways.' A few men becoming primary school teachers doesn't make childhood education manly. As far as society is concerned they are doing 'women's work.'

 

In many ways female masculinity is much more socially accepted than male femininity.

 

Yes, for the same reason that male homosexuality is often illegal while lesbianism is not. A feminine man cheapens masculinity and the privileges attached. 


Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#10

Posted 22 December 2015 - 01:39 PM

 Even if your Greek example were true, I don't see how it disagrees with what I'm saying.

You said 'gender and sex are the same thing.' If that were the case then gender would be static and wouldn't change entirely from one society from the next. Women are sometimes seen as inherently amoral, sometimes seen as existing only to provide moral guidance to men. Worrying about your appearance is now feminine (because oestrogen?) although in some Middle Eastern countries women wear only plain black robes and hoods. The only constant is that women raise children and are second class citizens. 

 

 

 

Being born a man automatically gives you masculine traits due to your brain being wired a certain way and having a certain mixture of hormones

Actually they don't really understand how sex hormones work. Men always have more testosterone than women, but high testosterone women are more aggressive than low testosterone men. I mean, if sex hormones worked the way you think there would be no female public speakers, no female boxers and no male psychologists. 

 

 

 

I don't think gender is a social construct because that suggests it's something artificial that some people just came up with and then we just adhere to it because people/society say that's how it should be. I think it's actually very heavily rooted in biology and is a completely natural thing.

I mean, gender is 'natural' and 'rooted in biology' and is no more artificial than any other human behaviour. That doesn't make it rational. 

 

 

 

 It's a biological construct not a social one.

Everything we do is by definition 'biological.' A 'biological construct' is a living creature . A 'social construct' is a shared and culturally specific understanding of the world. In this case, the idea that men are X and women are Y.

 

 

 

By whom is it understood that it's a social construct? 

Everybody? Communication and media theorists, behavioural economists, sociologists? Anybody that's thought about the issue for more than ten seconds? 

 

 

 

Anyways the point was that the male brain is better wired to understand these kinds of things and so male babies look at pictures of these kinds of things for longer. Which is why men are naturally better at things like maths and chess. 

It's been proven many times over that women are not inherently worse at maths. At any rate, I doubt masculinity to you means 'maths and chess', nor does it to the majority of men who cannot do maths and don't play chess. What does that have to do with how you sit, the clothes you wear or your career choice? How does that determine your accent which in some cultures are gendered? 

 

Even if we did accept that women are inherently more social and men more calculating, it's meaningless. I mean who cares? Knowing that men and women have slight differences in cognitive process doesn't mean we need to be colour coded with blue and pink.

  • GTA36362355 likes this

Hayduke
  • Hayduke

    Square Civilian

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2015
  • United-States

#11

Posted 22 December 2015 - 03:30 PM Edited by Hayduke, 22 December 2015 - 03:35 PM.

I'm pretty sure that masking oneself in make up and literally masking oneself for reasons of vanity are pretty similar, though an irrelevant remark to an irrelevant point. Following a religious custom and slapping on makeup aren't even remotely similar to warrant making a point.

In any case it's pretty hard to take seriously the notion that gender identity has never been constant, using the idea that Greek men used to cry, supposedly, when other more massive constants have been shown throughout history though even if gender is a construct of society then it is also irrelevant as a point. Clearly society has decided for itself certain gender roles and they appear to be working just fine. Supporting those who do not identify with a binary gender is all well and fine, but I'm not sure what the aim beyond that is. To make everyone throw away the shackles of binary gender? Good luck, seems like a fruitless waste of time when society hasn't exploded thus far. It would seem much more worthwhile to me and much less arrogant to teach people about a minority of people do not directly identify as gender a or gender b and to understand these people as humans than to state that they should stop being ridiculous, they're not really said gender because said gender doesn't exist beyond a societal construct. I can't imagine many people give much of a sh*t even if that statement is correct.

As a sidenote, some people are born intersex, maybe in these extremely rare cases you would have to much more deeply consider the notion of gender identity, but I imagine in most cases parents will pick whatever gender the child stereotypically exhibits and go with that. In any case, the existence of a rare genetic disorder doesn't really warrant the upheaval of certain aspects of society.
  • GTA_stu likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#12

Posted 22 December 2015 - 05:11 PM

I'm pretty sure that masking oneself in make up and literally masking oneself for reasons of vanity are pretty similar, though an irrelevant remark to an irrelevant point. Following a religious custom and slapping on makeup aren't even remotely similar to warrant making a point.

The issue is that genders swap traits every now and again. Go back a few hundred years and you'd see men fussing about their clothes and wearing elaborate outfits, while women's clothing was standardised. I don't really understand your response. I was responding to stu who said gender and sex are the exact same thing. Obviously there are constants, by definition there must be constants otherwise 'gender' would be a meaningless category of behaviour and we wouldn't be having this discussion. My point wasn't 'men in saudi arabia hold hands, checkm8 gender' although that'd be a pretty reasonable thing to argue anyway

 

 

 

 

Clearly society has decided for itself certain gender roles and they appear to be working just fine.

Clearly. 

 

 

 

Supporting those who do not identify with a binary gender is all well and fine, but I'm not sure what the aim beyond that is. To make everyone throw away the shackles of binary gender? Good luck, seems like a fruitless waste of time when society hasn't exploded thus far. 

What do you think you're responding to? Like do you think I was saying 'abolish gender to liberate non-binary people'? The aim is for women to be equal to men, duh. Queer peoples' issues stem from the fact that women are treated as less. 

 

Only radfems talk about abolishing gender because only they have such a piss-poor conception of what gender is and how it exists in different societies. 'Abolish gender' would be a meaningless statement because we don't know what a genderless society looks like or exactly what function gender serves other than the oppression of women. It might be that a post-patriarchal society is still gendered in a way or gendered interactions may simply cease to exist. We'll find out soon enough.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#13

Posted 22 December 2015 - 05:28 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 22 December 2015 - 06:29 PM.

Off course it's true that gender is culturally relative, but there are some characteristics that are kinda universal.. There has never been a culture where only women were the soldiers, and where only men took care of children. Women are biologically predisposed with the hormones and physiology (breasts..) that make them more naturally talented at taking care of children, and the same is true for men with regards to tasks that demand physical strength and competitiveness. As most people on this forum know I'm a progressive, but I try to keep an independent mind on issues, and I don't agree with what progressives generally believe on these issues.

What I think is a big issue is that in modern Western society competitiveness is valued over caringness due to capitalism. Because caringness is undervalued, saying women are naturally more caring and naturally less competitive equals sexism. I'm personally more inclined to the opposite norm, that caringness is more valuable than competitiveness. Nature actually kind of agrees with me on this.. thus why it is "women and children first", which I don't think is a culturally relative norm.
 

 

 

 Even if your Greek example were true, I don't see how it disagrees with what I'm saying.

You said 'gender and sex are the same thing.' If that were the case then gender would be static and wouldn't change entirely from one society from the next. Women are sometimes seen as inherently amoral, sometimes seen as existing only to provide moral guidance to men. Worrying about your appearance is now feminine (because oestrogen?) although in some Middle Eastern countries women wear only plain black robes and hoods. The only constant is that women raise children and are second class citizens.
 

You are too focused on the surface level, what women are wearing, but that's just a symptom. Femininity expresses itself in different ways due to cultural norms, but that doesn't mean femininity isn't an underlying constant. Off course in a society where female sexuality is extremely taboo, feminity expresses itself publicly in the opposite way compared to societies where this is not the case. Furthermore, there are second class citicens in the Middle East that have it much worse than women in the Middle East. I'd rather take care of children and be confined to housework, than work myself to death with physical labor as a slave for someone of higher social class. Especially if you compare the lives and privileges of higher class females with lower class males in a country like Saudi-Arabia, there's no question how much more privileged the women are.

 

Even if we did accept that women are inherently more social and men more calculating, it's meaningless. I mean who cares? Knowing that men and women have slight differences in cognitive process doesn't mean we need to be colour coded with blue and pink

This is what politically correct idiots do... They assume that when you make a point about what reality is like, that you are implying this reality is normative on the individual level. Yes, there are differences between men and women, does this imply that every individual female or male must aspire to a certain norm? No. Saying a reality doesn't imply a norm is a nuanced point. And considering nuanced points are banned from the mainstream, this point is disallowed. The mainstream doesn't like the danger that some idiot might think "women and men are different, so I will abuse my child to fit that norm, and that's justified". The mainstream mainly doesn't like that, because they want women to aspire to male norms because they want women to assimilate in the capitalist work force where masculinity is more valuable than femininity.
 

 

 

Only radfems talk about abolishing gender because only they have such a piss-poor conception of what gender is and how it exists in different societies. 'Abolish gender' would be a meaningless statement because we don't know what a genderless society looks like or exactly what function gender serves other than the oppression of women. It might be that a post-patriarchal society is still gendered in a way or gendered interactions may simply cease to exist. We'll find out soon enough.

Off the top of my head, it serves the function of a social construct for a division of labor, and for reproduction and family. Saying "we don't know what function gender serves other than the oppression of women" makes you sound like a 'radfem' yourself.

  • GTA_stu, GTA36362355 and Gay Tony like this

blaze
  • blaze

    Big Homie

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Super Special Gold Star 2006
    Draw Contest Booby Prize 2016
    Campaign Poster Booby Prize 2016
    Doggo-Chop Winner 2016

#14

Posted 22 December 2015 - 06:09 PM

Imo I think people should be free to identify as whatever they truly feel they are. sexual organs shouldn't really designate how a child is raised but then that brings the problem of how do you raise a child without gender, there's a small and increasing amount of parents raising kids of gender neutral but a large amount of society isn't ready for that I mean some people still have trouble accepting homosexuality nevermind people having no gender. It's pretty f*cked that blue is known as a boys colour and pink is for girls or whatever bullsh*t and it's f*cked that males who are promiscious are accepted and it's almost seen as the norm but then if a female does the same they're a slut/whore etc.

 

I don't think aboloshing gender is a good idea and anyone who thinks it is should probably spend less time arguing on the internet and more time in the real world although at the same time I think it's good that as of recent people are standing up for stuff like trans rights, gender identity and so forth instead of keeping it hush hush and sweeping it under the rug but at the same time some of them are so f*cking uptight about it; dunno if you guys have ever seen anything on Tumblr about gender identity, trans stuff etc but alot of it is those people preaching about acceptance/positivity and then proceeding to drag people through the mud for not having a clear understanding of gender identity/sexuality/fluidity/non-binary etc. Like said in previous paragraph a large problem about it just stems from people not having a clear understanding/acceptance about the situation.

 

"Clearly society has decided for itself certain gender roles and they appear to be working just fine" - that's fine but lets not forget alot of these roles were created and adopted what hundreds of years ago in a much different time whereas now people are standing up and saying hey you know what f*ck this i dont want to be constrained by some bullsh*t roles decided before i even existed.

 

(this is my first post in dnd i have no clue what the f*ck im doing)

  • epoxi, GTA36362355, The7thOne and 1 other like this

Gay Tony
  • Gay Tony

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 May 2014
  • United-States

#15

Posted 22 December 2015 - 06:40 PM Edited by Gay Tony, 22 December 2015 - 08:10 PM.

What I think is a big issue is that in modern Western society competitiveness is valued over caringness due to capitalism. Because caringness is undervalued, saying women are naturally more caring and naturally less competitive equals sexism. I'm personally more inclined to the opposite norm, that caringness is more valuable than competitiveness. Nature actually kind of agrees with me on this.. thus why it is "women and children first", which I don't think is a culturally relative norm.

 

Caringness is more valuable than competitiveness.....in females, not males. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've always thought the "women and children's first" mentality came from females being the limiting factor of reproduction in any species. i.e. Man can impregnate multiple women with little investment; while women can have one child over the course of 9 months or so.

 

I don't see how this is it 'going both ways.' A few men becoming primary school teachers doesn't make childhood education manly. As far as society is concerned they are doing 'women's work.'

 

I think you might've misread what I wrote, mate.

  • Irviding likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#16

Posted 22 December 2015 - 08:46 PM

If we're born with a certain sexuality is it so out of the question we're probably also born with gendered attributes attributing to biology as well.....which means gender isn't entirely a social construct.

frankly my dear, I don't see what damn difference it makes...

 

didn't we already have a pretty lengthy debate on sexuality and marriage equality?

what new ground are we going to cover in this topic? so long as we're not engaging in child abuse or rape, it's really anything-goes in bed. there's no right or wrong answer assuming you're not hurting anyone and everything is consensual.

 

gender is part social contract and part biological construct.

barring the extremely rare medical phenomenon, clearly everyone is either born with a penis or born with a vagina. after that it's really up to your distribution of hormones and the balance of certain chemicals within your brain that determines your underlying sexual attractions and attitudes. much of the current evidence we have on genetic sexual-assignment seems to indicate that the chemical makeup of your brain is usually "set" before birth.

 

in short? as we've always known, gay people are born gay, straight people are born straight.

no one makes a conscious decision in that regard. if they could, no one would choose homosexuality anyhow. why would anyone choose persecution? family and environmental upbringing can certainly impact your emotional responses to your own sexuality; it can cause you great frustration, confusion, and distress (as we've seen with this bullsh/t Gay Conversion Therapy) but it cannot change who you are deep down or who you're attracted to. you either hide who you are and live a lie, or you acknowledge who you are.

 

I'm really not sure what difference it makes after that.

why do we have to figure out the exact combination of Nature versus Nurture? what will it change? who cares?

  • Mister Pink likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#17

Posted 23 December 2015 - 01:41 AM

 

 

 

 Even if your Greek example were true, I don't see how it disagrees with what I'm saying.

You said 'gender and sex are the same thing.' If that were the case then gender would be static and wouldn't change entirely from one society from the next. Women are sometimes seen as inherently amoral, sometimes seen as existing only to provide moral guidance to men. Worrying about your appearance is now feminine (because oestrogen?) although in some Middle Eastern countries women wear only plain black robes and hoods. The only constant is that women raise children and are second class citizens.
 

You are too focused on the surface level, what women are wearing, but that's just a symptom. Femininity expresses itself in different ways due to cultural norms, but that doesn't mean femininity isn't an underlying constant. Off course in a society where female sexuality is extremely taboo, feminity expresses itself publicly in the opposite way compared to societies where this is not the case. 

Right, for the third or fourth time now: nobody is arguing that gender is an entirely random set of behaviours. Stu is pretty clearly arguing that gender and sex are the same thing. I don't know why you're butting in. Do you agree with him?

 

 

 

Furthermore, there are second class citicens in the Middle East that have it much worse than women in the Middle East. I'd rather take care of children and be confined to housework, than work myself to death with physical labor as a slave for someone of higher social class. Especially if you compare the lives and privileges of higher class females with lower class males in a country like Saudi-Arabia, there's no question how much more privileged the women are.

ok

 

 

 

Yes, there are differences between men and women, does this imply that every individual female or male must aspire to a certain norm?

If you think 'gender and sex are the same thing' then yes. 

 

 

 

 The mainstream mainly doesn't like that, because they want women to aspire to male norms because they want women to assimilate in the capitalist work force where masculinity is more valuable than femininity.
 

An astute observation, though I don't see the relevance.

 

What is going on with women and capital is quite complex. I mean, on one hand women who enter institutions like the police or the higher levels of state/corporate management are expected to be, well worse than the men. On the other, this doesn't lead to a society without femininity necessarily, it's possible women will just split into two genders: masculine women and feminine women. 

 

 

 

Off the top of my head, it serves the function of a social construct for a division of labor, and for reproduction and family.

Also known as 'chaining women to the stove.' 

 

Generally band societies are quite patriarchal, with normalised and often ritualised rape and binary gender. As the societies become more productive they can split into three, four or five genders. Sino-Western civilisation eventually regressed, while India- an advanced civilisation- did not. It's tempting to say that war necessitated the division of labour, especially when the Maori seemed to turn half their men into 'feminine men' homemakers as soon as their civil war ended. Of course that doesn't explain India.

 

Let's keep in mind here that you view gender as a utility rather than a moral imperative. This doesn't mesh with stu's gender essentialism, rather it's in line with the views of societies where men and women both are taught hunting and homemaking so they can switch roles on the fly. 

  • Eutyphro likes this

Tyler
  • Tyler

    Legit Tattoo Gun

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • None
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#18

Posted 23 December 2015 - 11:32 AM

You are too focused on the surface level, what women are wearing, but that's just a symptom. Femininity expresses itself in different ways due to cultural norms, but that doesn't mean femininity isn't an underlying constant. Off course in a society where female sexuality is extremely taboo, feminity expresses itself publicly in the opposite way compared to societies where this is not the case. Furthermore, there are second class citicens in the Middle East that have it much worse than women in the Middle East. I'd rather take care of children and be confined to housework, than work myself to death with physical labor as a slave for someone of higher social class. Especially if you compare the lives and privileges of higher class females with lower class males in a country like Saudi-Arabia, there's no question how much more privileged the women are.

 

I understand the point you're making here, but weighing oppressed groups in a regime against each other and proposing which one has it worse off is counter-intuitive. For the purpose of unity in action against cultural norms wherein any valid group is being treated unfairly, you should not act holier than thou when someone brings up a group you don't think is being oppressed enough. Beyond that, oppression of women in places like Saudi Arabia isn't "surface level"-- there is a clear aspect of society that devalues womanhood in these areas, hence the proliferation violence against them, and subjugation of them.

 

 

 

If we're born with a certain sexuality is it so out of the question we're probably also born with gendered attributes attributing to biology as well[?]

 

We aren't born with any gendered attributes, no. Our biology, at the time of birth, relates directly to the sex of which we are; that is, we are defined by our sex at birth. However, sex only covers such as the following: chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, etc. These traits don't determine our gender. The reason for this is because gender is not the physical product of who we are through genitalia or chromosomes, but rather the direct response those features garner from wider society. So, let's word this more clearly in case there is confusion: gender is the response to biological sex; it is not your biological sex. It is heavily related to biological sex, but it is not the direct correlation of it. Were the latter true, we would not have gender dysmorphia (GID) or transsexualism. Something to note here is that the existence of such groups as valid and not suffering from mental illness is debated or rejected outright by certain institutions.

 

To clarify further, gender is the frame which refers to biological sex both on an individual and interpersonal level. In wider society, gender is the "attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex." In other words, gender is defined as the response by which we act in accordance to sex. I want to reiterate once more: gender and sex are different.

 

 

There have been studies done on 1 day old babies where they're shown different things and there are clear patterns where males and females react differently. Baby girls look at pictures of faces longer for example and boys look at mechanical things for longer. 

 

[citations needed]

 

 

One thing that's sometimes brought up when discussing this is the idea that "gay" wasn't really a thing hundreds of years ago like it is today. So was that because back then there was roughly the same percentage as today that was attracted to the same sex, but they just didn't act on it or admit it to anyone from fear of persecution? Or was there really just less proportion of the population that was attracted to the same sex? I personally think it was the 2nd one. 

 

So, this isn't a surprise: notions of gender shift as society changes. Ideas about sexuality are dynamic through history. We can look at areas within China leading into modernity wherein there existed a positive notion of male-male relationships. Leading up to the time of Spanish colonization of the Americas, there were first-hand accounts of natives engaging in homosexual acts--this, of course, garnered the hostility of conquering Europeans. More specifically, Andean societies had a notion of a "third gender" which complemented the male-female ideal in rituals and observations of sexuality. Conversely, there is a history of repression of homosexual or transgender acts (though this is more obvious, isn't it?). There has been a long conflict in Christianity and Christian cultures re: acceptance of homosexual acts. Further, Abrahamic faith has, since the time of the Torah's conception, condemned the practice of sodomy, as well as... cross-dressing.[1] In other words, there exists no consensus through the ages on things like homosexuality or transgenderism.

 

It is of note to clarify that these concepts were treated as though they were individual acts, though. Until very recently, the idea that one was heterosexual or homosexual was not how sexual orientation was conceived--though that is not because of a lack of evidence pertaining to the existence of homosexuality. Make no mistake, it's been around for a long, long time. There is a trove of evidence pertaining to its proliferation, repression, and existence. However, we shouldn't be anachronistic when describing these phenomenon. As stated above, gender is dynamic, and the vocabulary and paradigms we use now were not always present.

 

 

 

If women do something it's wrong and degrading, unless men start doing it, then it's amazing. This has happened recently with cooking.

 

I'd just like to say it really does go both ways. Men being stay at home dads, caretakers, primary school teachers, etc. is often seen as kinda "unmanly" and most defiantly not amazing. Whereas when women go into fields like engineering, hard sciences, etc. it's almost seen as "cool".

 

In many ways female masculinity is much more socially accepted than male femininity [citation needed].

 

 

There is a nuance to how contemporary Americans view gender roles, yes. This comes at the cost of being in a transitional period wherein long-accepted ideas about sex and gender identity are being challenged. The sexual revolution in the 60s dusted up a frenzy. Proceeding movements continued to go against traditional ideals. The fact that this is a generational movement makes it even more complicated.

 

However, this does not mean that, "it goes both ways" w/r/t transgression of gender roles. There is still a blatant institutional and cultural bias in effect against women, and these concessions within our culture (see: the concept of tomboys) is in no way the actual progression of equal rights. In fact, the term 'tomboy' itself has at-once been used affectionately and derogatorily. The narrative that women are somehow seen as "cool" for entering traditionally male-dominated professions like engineering is also spurious: engineering is a field in which women are the most underrepresented in the United States. There are multiple reasons for this. Nonetheless, women continue to remain underrepresented in post-grad engineering, and the societal pressure to hire on more women engineers in the workforce has been more due to reaction of the perceived stigmatization of them, rather than an organic preference (and is somewhat irrelevant given that women are still in the low-end on completion of degrees in engineering--despite completing degrees on a higher average than men, in general).

 

 

I want to address your other point, though. The complaint you have about the limited acceptance of male femininity v. female masculinity ties back into the wider perspective that American society has toward both groups. This issue you bring up--the current perspective of manhood and being manly--is a result of the same societal function which leads to the objectification of women. Our society holds disproportionate views on men and women which are hyper-critical of divergence from gender roles. This results in the tension of feminine men being seen as lesser (this being the specific group whose conflict you are aware of). However, this also results in women being seen as sex objects in the workforce. It is what determines our preference for beefy men on billboards and bikini-clad women in burger commercials. It is the runaway effect of a particular set of views on human sexuality in tension with another. The thing to take away from this is that ignoring any one aspect of this inequity will not lead to progress on any one other. That there exists this disconnect in society re: what gender should be with what it actually is--this is part of the reason things like feminism exist, at all.

 

 

I don't think gender is a social construct because that suggests it's something artificial that some people just came up with and then we just adhere to it because people/society say that's how it should be. I think it's actually very heavily rooted in biology and is a completely natural thing. It's a biological construct not a social one. By whom is it understood that it's a social construct? 

 

Social constructs are not something that are "just c[o]me up with." Rather, they are a joint understanding of value systems and reality expressed by societies over the course of generations, communicated through language, and reinforced through rationalization. It is misleading to shrug the idea of a social construction off as something "just made-up," and it is also incorrect to say that they are unnatural. They exist as a result of the natural interactions of humans through time, and their distinction as specifically social rather than biological functions is necessary because they are primarily developed through our social facilitation. That is to say, there is nothing artificial about what social constructs are. As to who understands gender as a social construct, this is in line with Encyclopedia.com's definition of the term. This site uses Oxford University Press and Columbia Encyclopedia as references. It is also commonly accepted in social psychology.

 

 

 

There's also this thinking that people are born straight, gay, bi, etc. 

 

 

I don't think anyone is actually born gay, I think it's just something that kinda develops but obviously with some people they're much more predisposed one way or the other, and I think environment can be a big factor. 

 

So, at present, this is actually one of the more interesting aspects of sexuality: sexual orientation. More specifically, how sexual orientation develops over the course of one's life, and whether it is something that is static and determined at birth, perhaps variable and dependent on adolescent upbringing, or something else altogether.

 

Psychologists have been dolling out scales and continuum in recent decades in response to traditional binary perspectives on sexuality (the Kinsey Scale being perhaps the most popular thanks to its propagation on the Internet--though it is by no means the only way to illustrate how sexuality relates). If we want to get more personal, I think there is something to the idea that most people are not bound to a purely hetero- or homo- orientation. It is clear through the way people communicate ideas about attraction--from the first romantic poem all the way to the latest Tinder messages--that this is a topic which is oftentimes more complex, and less understood, than we think. I'm not sure I can make meaningful statements on romance and attraction other than by saying they seem to be immensely personal, almost non-communicable (isn't that the issue with so many ill-fated relationships?) aspects of our lives.

 

Anyway, there is insufficient evidence to validate whether upbringing plays a role in sexual orientation. 

 

One interesting development in recent pediatric practice is the inclusion of awareness on informing children of sexual identities and orientation at earlier ages. For a number of reasons, the reality of sexual orientations are more apparent to children than they were before. As a result, there needs to be a way to communicate "factual, current, nonjudgmental information in a confidential manner." While we're getting personal, I think this is a fantastic idea. I know my own adolescence in the Midwest was profoundly affected by the social norms present. I was unable to fully communicate or even understand certain realities about myself. This was due, in no small part, to the rigid, abstinence-enforced, don't-talk-about-it mentality that was prevalent in the community of which I was a part. American society has always had an odd perspective on sexuality and how to approach it as a topic around children. I think it's great that we are beginning to better understand how to talk about these things with our children. Maybe there won't be so much trauma for children who aren't hetero-normative in ten years.

 

 

 

 

 

1 -- Though there is a wide sphere of interpretation of the ancient texts, and I'd argue offshoots of Judaism don't follow the Law in any way recognizable to its original intention, thus invalidating their defense of certain transgressive sexual acts with the Torah itself. Maybe at the moment it is worth pointing out that Jews are among the strongest supporters of LGBT rights in the U.S. today. As a further aside, those aforementioned contradictions in reference and logic are not a negation of actions or an attempt to feel morally superior: societies have, as a whole, operated with varying degrees of dissonant logic since their dawn. It is one of the few universal things about us. We are good at misunderstanding ourselves, especially given enough time and ambiguity.

 

Apologies for any improper attributions or any poor wording.

  • Eutyphro, mr quick, Irviding and 5 others like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#19

Posted 23 December 2015 - 02:45 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 23 December 2015 - 04:10 PM.

 

You are too focused on the surface level, what women are wearing, but that's just a symptom. Femininity expresses itself in different ways due to cultural norms, but that doesn't mean femininity isn't an underlying constant. Off course in a society where female sexuality is extremely taboo, feminity expresses itself publicly in the opposite way compared to societies where this is not the case. Furthermore, there are second class citicens in the Middle East that have it much worse than women in the Middle East. I'd rather take care of children and be confined to housework, than work myself to death with physical labor as a slave for someone of higher social class. Especially if you compare the lives and privileges of higher class females with lower class males in a country like Saudi-Arabia, there's no question how much more privileged the women are.

 

I understand the point you're making here, but weighing oppressed groups in a regime against each other and proposing which one has it worse off is counter-intuitive. For the purpose of unity in action against cultural norms wherein any valid group is being treated unfairly, you should not act holier than thou when someone brings up a group you don't think is being oppressed enough. Beyond that, oppression of women in places like Saudi Arabia isn't "surface level"-- there is a clear aspect of society that devalues womanhood in these areas, hence the proliferation violence against them, and subjugation of them.

 

I think it is good though to put the oppression of women in perspective like this. I don't think it is good for women to think they have been the most abused and oppressed group through history, which isn't true. Yes, women have been incredibly oppressed by being locked up in the house and by getting no ways for intellectual development. Female sexuality has been incredibly oppressed, the old testament example I gave of that you should give a father an amount of silver and marry a woman to make up for raping her being among the more radical ones.

What has not been oppressed about women though, is their standard of living (compared to men of the same social class), and their physical well being (which has been systematically privileged). Why is nobody talking about the historical oppression of men of lower class? How men had to kill themselves through physical labour for dangerous work like construction, or had to die on battlefields. It's not like there was universal access to higher education for lower class men before women could get higher education. Suffrage for all men is only seperated a few decades in most Western countries from female suffrage, and the reason for this was that men achieved universal suffrage in exchange for being drafted.

Because if those in control politically were men too, then how could men have possibly been oppressed..? Bullsh*t. It is clear that everybody has been oppressed historically compared to higher class males. Go tell some construction worker in your area who's body is completely burned out by the time he's 50, if he hasn't died in a work related accident yet, that he is privileged over some c*nt at the gender studies department. This is the flipside to the ways in which women have been oppressed, and in this respect they have historically been systematically privileged.

Nobody really gives a sh*t about this though, especially not on your local universities gender studies department. So that is why I get allergic to the theory of the historical victimization of women, which nobody puts in perspective, and because of that has a negative impact on the historical sense women get of femininity, which I think has a negative impact on the way women think about femininity in general, and you end up with crazy brainwashed feminists who are among the most unpleasant people you could meet.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#20

Posted 23 December 2015 - 07:55 PM

jesus christ this is getting off topic fast...


Gay Tony
  • Gay Tony

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 May 2014
  • United-States

#21

Posted 23 December 2015 - 09:23 PM Edited by Gay Tony, 23 December 2015 - 09:34 PM.

I'm really not sure what difference it makes after that.

why do we have to figure out the exact combination of Nature versus Nurture? what will it change? who cares?

 

Men and women often have differing expectations and roles which can be harmful to individuality; outliers suffer negative consequences. Better understanding nature/nurture could explain why men and women take on differing roles and if it's not entirely biology; can and should something be done to change it?

 

This isn't just a topic on sexuality and has nothing to do with marriage equality. It's more all encompassing so if it goes off the rails a bit it's still within the reigns of gender & sexuality.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#22

Posted 23 December 2015 - 10:22 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 23 December 2015 - 10:58 PM.

I'm really not sure what difference it makes after that.

why do we have to figure out the exact combination of Nature versus Nurture? what will it change? who cares?

 

Yeah, if I could respond to this.. It has to do with the fact that feminists see gender as a historical conspiracy among patriarchs to oppress women.This conviction scrambles their brain, because what is most womens emotional framework, which is inborn, being caring over being competitive, being social over being analytical, being emotionally vulnerable.. if you believe this is a conspiracy to oppress you, when in reality it is your very nature, it f*cks you up, and makes you a dysfunctional, unhappy, unpleasant, person.

What gender really is, is a social construct for a division of labor, and a way to regulate reproduction and family, and society in general, and optionally property (as in, women being male property). Before agriculture, when we were hunter gatherers, the most important period for human evolution and the most indicative of our actual nature, sex was rather free, monogamy was most likely rare, and male female power relations were egalitarian, except for when there was war, which is when the natural qualities of men take precedence. 

 

Agriculture caused the advent of private property, it caused women to be the property of men, and female sexuality to become the property of male individuals, monogamy, for the sake of controlling society, family, and reproduction, and to make sure every man, no matter how unattractive, if he were an obedient provider and useful member of society, could 'own' a wife. Thus it also caused patriarchy and inegalitarian male-female power relations.

When in the West the labor women used to do, housework, was increasingly eased by technology, washing machines, microwaves, prepackaged and processed food etc.. it became clear that it was much more useful for production if women became part of the capitalist work force, and put their children in daycare so then that became the mainstream norm. You should look at how the Amish still live, and you'll understand why a division of labor between women and men in the 19th century was not a conspiracy against women at all, but a practical necessity.

So the Nature vs Nurture debate is very meaningful and important, and is not just a scientific question, but an issue for society. Feminists deny nature as far as possible, and think we should reconstruct gender, or even completely abolish it. Mainstream progressives agree with this, because they want women to aspire male norms so they can function better in the capitalists economy. This goal of mainstream progressives has succeeded quite well, and women are doing much better than men in higher education, and the pay gap is actually switching, and men of the newer generations are starting to make less than women (here in the Netherlands that is). Female workers who aspire male norms might be better capitalist employees than men. Women are more socially aware of what is expected of them than men are, which makes them better students, and maybe eventually better employees. Men are increasingly failing in society compared to women.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#23

Posted 23 December 2015 - 11:11 PM Edited by El Diablo, 23 December 2015 - 11:15 PM.


So the Nature vs Nurture debate is very meaningful and important, and is not just a scientific question, but an issue for society. Feminists deny nature as far as possible, and think we should reconstruct gender, or even completely abolish it. Mainstream progressives agree with this, because they want women to aspire male norms so they can function better in the capitalists economy. This goal of mainstream progressives has succeeded quite well, and women are doing much better than men in higher education, and the pay gap is actually switching, and men of the newer generations are starting to make less than women (here in the Netherlands that is). Female workers who aspire male norms might be better capitalist employees than men. Women are more socially aware of what is expected of them than men are, which makes them better students, and maybe eventually better employees. Men are increasingly failing in society compared to women.

well now it just sounds like you're painting feminism with an unfairly large brush... :/

 

feminism and progressive-ism, for that matter.

 

 

 


Better understanding nature/nurture could explain why men and women take on differing roles and if it's not entirely biology; can and should something be done to change it?

at the end of the day, I fail to see what exactly is gained by "understanding" the exact combination of environment versus genetics.
 
I think we understand that human sexuality is relatively fluid and that that's ok. because I think we can agree that there's nothing wrong about any aspect of human sexuality assuming it's consensual and isn't abusive. so... I think we can agree that the lionshare of the issues that negatively affect human sexuality stem from personal dogmatic beliefs (with no basis in biological science). so why would we need to do anything to "change it??"
 
if we're assuming that something can be changed, then you're just implying that anyone who isn't cis-gender heterosexual has something inherently wrong with them that could be changed. as far as we know, you cannot change a persons sexual orientation by force and if anything it becomes torturous and detrimental to even try. assuming that there might be something we can change is exactly the kind of dangerous precedent that leads to the discrimination we've been trying to overcome
 
I'm not saying you're a discriminatory person, but I don't see how that line of thinking will help society (or the LGBT) in the long run. I suppose that in some sense it would be cool to figure out the exact combination that unlocks our understanding of all gender assignment roles... in another sense I really don't see how it helps anything.
 
it's still much more biology than not.
you can't raise someone gay no matter how hard you try. you can't raise a gay person straight by that same token. so I don't see where you're going to go with it.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#24

Posted 23 December 2015 - 11:25 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 23 December 2015 - 11:39 PM.

If you don't think gender should be reconstructed to a norm where masculinity and femininity are closer together, then you are not a feminist Diablo.. That's not painting with a brush that is too large. And by feminist, I mean the type of ideas you learn at academic gender studies courses.

On progressivism.. I am a progessive, but mainly in the sphere of social class. If issues of social class and private property are solved, if we make our society egalitarian and democratic, then this will naturally solve gender issues, and bring us closer to our nature. That's what I believe. And I don't believe this nature is women being pseudo men, like mainstream progressives on your mainstream news want. I don't think either men, or women, are happy that way.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#25

Posted 23 December 2015 - 11:37 PM

I guess I should've sat in and audited more gender studies courses while I was in college...

 

I simply don't agree that our issues with gender can be tied to "social class and private property." if our democracy functioned better than that would certainly clean up a lot of our social issues in general, but otherwise I'm not sure what social class demographics has to do with it.

 

gender and sexuality are fluid - or can be - and that's ok.

I'm not going to tell a woman she's wrong for wanting to feel super-girly and be a little princess who loves pink. if that's what she really wants there's nothing wrong with it, as long as we're also not forcing all girls to conform in that way. there's nothing wrong with traditional gender stratification in and of itself. all of the horsesh/t comes from people in power attempting to legislate NORMALCY in the place of allowing nature to run its course.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#26

Posted 23 December 2015 - 11:44 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 23 December 2015 - 11:44 PM.

You should read my earlier comments. Oppressive gender norms arose when humans moved from hunting and gathering to agriculture. Hunter gatherer societies were very egalitarian and democratic, sex was free, and monogamy was rare. Agriculture caused the advent of private property, which caused the advent of monogamy, blabla, read my other comments and you might get it..


Tyler
  • Tyler

    Legit Tattoo Gun

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • None
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#27

Posted 24 December 2015 - 12:56 AM

I simply don't agree that our issues with gender can be tied to "social class and private property." if our democracy functioned better than that would certainly clean up a lot of our social issues in general, but otherwise I'm not sure what social class demographics has to do with it.

 

Conceptions of gender are dependent on larger society. Larger society operates with dynamics of power that become oppressive towards minorities in an intersectional way under specific circumstances. Therefore, class demographics are directly related to social norms re: what gender is, how it should function, and why.

 

Society is structured in specific ways. Those structures give way to cultures, ideas, virtues, values, etc. To dismiss the material conditions that lead to our ideologies is to miss half of the picture.

  • Eutyphro and Fonz like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#28

Posted 24 December 2015 - 01:49 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 24 December 2015 - 01:58 AM.

But yeah, in retrospect Tyler, I see your point about how me weighing and comparing oppression of different groups in an analytical way is rather bizarre. I feel rather bizarre doing it too. But I'm a rather fundamentally analytical person, so that's how I roll..

If there is any subject that f*cks my mind to talk analytically about it is gender. A few months ago it was something I got kind of obsessed about, because I felt all the views I knew on the subject were inadequate. So if I post that an opinion on it is mainstream rubbish, I'd point out that I wouldn't have been able to come up with anything better before I became obsessed over the subject recently. And even now my knowledge is too limited and not multidisciplinary enough to fully work out the truth behind it.

What among other things opened up my mind was a youtube anti feminist woman named Karen Straughan, especially on the topic of white knighting... It made me grasp why most men start talk like someone is aiming their balls with a shotgun when the subject of feminism comes up. Because what I just did, comparing lower class male oppression with female oppression, is like self castration if you air this opinion publicly without making a massive contextual statement that softens it.

As a man, you are not in a position to talk about femininity in general in an honest way, criticize groups of women, and criticize similarly to how I could for instance criticize masculinity, or criticize male idiot groups. And whenever you do so, it feels like your very nuts are under attack haha. Only very good comedians can talk about this topic and feel completely safe. George Carlin for instance, can say whatever the f*ck he wants, and not care..You see most men stay away from this topic, wisely. Oke I'm f*cking ranting in this topic.. 

Actually, there is also some stuff in the PUA community that changed my mind. Lots of the PUA community is disgusting, but there is stuff I found that opened my mind.

  • Gay Tony likes this

Gay Tony
  • Gay Tony

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 May 2014
  • United-States

#29

Posted 24 December 2015 - 02:11 AM Edited by Gay Tony, 24 December 2015 - 02:13 AM.

What among other things opened up my mind was a youtube anti feminist woman named Karen Straughan, especially on the topic of white knighting... It made me grasp why most men start talk like someone is aiming their balls with a shotgun when the subject of feminism comes up. Because what I just did, comparing lower class male oppression with female oppression, is like self castration if you air this opinion publicly without making a massive contextual statement that softens it.

 

I've watched one of her video's on "the disposable male" a few years back which kind of opened my eyes in that although women have generally been oppressed and not had the amount of freedom men had even today in many places; men are also considered to be more expendable and used for risky jobs, warfare, etc. which makes complete sense and just isn't something brought to light very often.

  • Irviding likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#30

Posted 24 December 2015 - 02:55 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 24 December 2015 - 02:57 AM.

Yep, because if you are 'alpha' you simply don't give a sh*t about men who are in a lower tier in society than you. You are more like: "yeah, true, women are the best at everything, can I get some pussy?" Or as a politician: "yeah, more rightz for womenz, can I be president nao?" So men are never going to care about other men. We don't have that inner solidarity anyway like women do, like the way women talk about each others issues with one another, and care about one another. As men we can't be vulnerable like that. So yeah men, don't care, and do women care about men who are failures? hahaha Maybe their moms and that's it. So men failing in society, which is an increasing problem in society, is something really nobody cares about. Male suicides are significantly higher than female ones. Women are increasingly beating men in higher education. Women are even starting to make more money, where I live.. I think in Western society, men are starting to have more issues than women, but nobody cares. To respond to an older comment by you:

 

 

Caringness is more valuable than competitiveness.....in females, not males. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've always thought the "women and children's first" mentality came from females being the limiting factor of reproduction in any species. i.e. Man can impregnate multiple women with little investment; while women can have one child over the course of 9 months or so.

 

What I meant by saying that nature cares more about women and children than about men, and thus more about caringness than competitiveness, is that in a time of war it is a mans duty to sacrifice himself for the women and children. One of the reasons for this is as you say, the number of men that survive can still impregnate the same amount of women, and furthermore it is more important for the next generation to have a mother than to have a father, because women are better at caring for children... This is so pragmatically universal across different human cultures, that it isn't even culturally relative. The disposability of men is a universal norm in the human species. Off course this disposability applies most specifically to lower class men who have only a physical, and little intellectual skill. This also relates to white knighting. The reason men are likely to stay away from criticizing women, or groups of women (feminists), like they criticize men, is because it is sensed that if you don't protect women verbally, you are probably not likely to protect them from harm either, and that just makes you a crappy male, considering protecting women is your number one nature given task as a man.
 

  • Irviding and Gay Tony like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users